|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On July 12 2013 03:13 xDaunt wrote: Bernie, telling the jurors to use common sense isn't going to help your case. USE YOUR GODDAMN COMMON SENSE AND IGNORE ALL THE EVIDENCE PEOPLE!!!
|
'most importantly use your god given common sense'
more important than the facts and evidence, trust the invisible man in the sky who gave you some sort of super power to reason in your own head outside of what's presented to you.
sickest prosecution.
|
On July 12 2013 03:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 03:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 03:10 xDaunt wrote:On July 12 2013 03:08 LegalLord wrote:On July 12 2013 03:06 xDaunt wrote:On July 12 2013 03:03 LegalLord wrote: Blatant attempt to abuse the human element of a jury if I've ever seen one. In fairness, attorneys do this all of the time. That doesn't make it any more correct. I'd argue that this is worse because the state, a party that is supposed to be concerned with justice rather than winning a case, is doing this. Well, I'm not prepared to say that this is a case where the prosecution has the ethical duty to dismiss the charges. Until that point, the prosecution has a job to do. Of course they do, they rely on lying to the jury to win their case!! how much more unecthical can you be? if he can't tell the jury the truth to get a conviction, what makes him think the guy is guilty? Pontius Pilate had a job to do too. He has the manslaughter charge in there, so the Jury has that to consider. And the Defense will object if he flat out lies.
He already has flat out lied. No objection. It's a strategic decision whether or not to object to such shit.
|
On July 12 2013 03:15 AllHailTheDead wrote:
IDK what I'll do if hes found guilty, considering how bad the states arguments have been......
I'll be a lot more nervous if I've had to kill a guy to defend myself. I'm pasty fuckin white, if i have to shoot a big burly black teenager in self defense, I'm going to be shitting myself thinking I'm going to end up in prison with all this guy's buddies.
|
On July 12 2013 03:16 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 03:15 AllHailTheDead wrote: IDK what I'll do if hes found guilty, considering how bad the states arguments have been...... Seems like there's a pretty good case for the defense to appeal, if it comes to that. There's been a fair share of funny business in this case. I don't know what you appeal in a jury case. Overturning their rulings is very, very difficult.
|
On July 12 2013 03:17 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 03:15 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 03:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 03:10 xDaunt wrote:On July 12 2013 03:08 LegalLord wrote:On July 12 2013 03:06 xDaunt wrote:On July 12 2013 03:03 LegalLord wrote: Blatant attempt to abuse the human element of a jury if I've ever seen one. In fairness, attorneys do this all of the time. That doesn't make it any more correct. I'd argue that this is worse because the state, a party that is supposed to be concerned with justice rather than winning a case, is doing this. Well, I'm not prepared to say that this is a case where the prosecution has the ethical duty to dismiss the charges. Until that point, the prosecution has a job to do. Of course they do, they rely on lying to the jury to win their case!! how much more unecthical can you be? if he can't tell the jury the truth to get a conviction, what makes him think the guy is guilty? Pontius Pilate had a job to do too. He has the manslaughter charge in there, so the Jury has that to consider. And the Defense will object if he flat out lies. He already has flat out lied. No objection. It's a strategic decision whether or not to object to such shit. What did he say? I lack sound on my work PC and Im not streaming this stuff through my phone.
|
On July 12 2013 03:17 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 03:15 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 03:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 03:10 xDaunt wrote:On July 12 2013 03:08 LegalLord wrote:On July 12 2013 03:06 xDaunt wrote:On July 12 2013 03:03 LegalLord wrote: Blatant attempt to abuse the human element of a jury if I've ever seen one. In fairness, attorneys do this all of the time. That doesn't make it any more correct. I'd argue that this is worse because the state, a party that is supposed to be concerned with justice rather than winning a case, is doing this. Well, I'm not prepared to say that this is a case where the prosecution has the ethical duty to dismiss the charges. Until that point, the prosecution has a job to do. Of course they do, they rely on lying to the jury to win their case!! how much more unecthical can you be? if he can't tell the jury the truth to get a conviction, what makes him think the guy is guilty? Pontius Pilate had a job to do too. He has the manslaughter charge in there, so the Jury has that to consider. And the Defense will object if he flat out lies. He already has flat out lied. No objection. It's a strategic decision whether or not to object to such shit. MOM has shown me his competence, so i'm not worried about that. i bet he's just waiting for his closing argument to shit all over this guys BS.
|
Just remember, indignance wins out in the end.
|
Don't forget my drinking game. Every time BDLR mentions "fucking punks" and "assholes" we drink. Not once has he mentioned John Good, although I imagine he will to refute it (somehow). Defense surely will make a chorus line out of John Good, and to each occurrence, we shall drink !!!
|
On July 12 2013 03:20 Kaitlin wrote: Don't forget my drinking game. Every time BDLR mentions "fucking punks" and "assholes" we drink. Not once has he mentioned John Good, although I imagine he will to refute it (somehow). Defense surely will make a chorus line out of John Good, and to each occurrence, we shall drink !!! I'm already drunk bro.
|
On July 12 2013 03:20 Kaitlin wrote: Don't forget my drinking game. Every time BDLR mentions "fucking punks" and "assholes" we drink. Not once has he mentioned John Good, although I imagine he will to refute it (somehow). Defense surely will make a chorus line out of John Good, and to each occurrence, we shall drink !!! The faster way to get drunk is to drink every time the Defense starts talking about reasonable doubt.
|
On July 12 2013 03:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 03:17 Kaitlin wrote:On July 12 2013 03:15 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 03:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 03:10 xDaunt wrote:On July 12 2013 03:08 LegalLord wrote:On July 12 2013 03:06 xDaunt wrote:On July 12 2013 03:03 LegalLord wrote: Blatant attempt to abuse the human element of a jury if I've ever seen one. In fairness, attorneys do this all of the time. That doesn't make it any more correct. I'd argue that this is worse because the state, a party that is supposed to be concerned with justice rather than winning a case, is doing this. Well, I'm not prepared to say that this is a case where the prosecution has the ethical duty to dismiss the charges. Until that point, the prosecution has a job to do. Of course they do, they rely on lying to the jury to win their case!! how much more unecthical can you be? if he can't tell the jury the truth to get a conviction, what makes him think the guy is guilty? Pontius Pilate had a job to do too. He has the manslaughter charge in there, so the Jury has that to consider. And the Defense will object if he flat out lies. He already has flat out lied. No objection. It's a strategic decision whether or not to object to such shit. What did he say? I lack sound on my work PC and Im not streaming this stuff through my phone.
Eh - scroll back just a couple of pages and search on my name. It was right at the beginning of closing argument. He started out with the second line out of his mouth. Had something to do with Trayvon is dead, "through no fault of his own". There have been subsequent blatant lies as well.
|
Lol. I'm going to steal that slide from Bernie.
|
Not on the "color" of her personality. That's some nice wording right there.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
This whole Jeantel bit feels like it will do more harm than good for the prosecution's case.
|
Is BDLR offending the jury by going so hard that they should disregard Rachel Jeantel's "colorful personality" ?
|
Prosecution is not just playing the race card; they're playing the whole deck.
|
Based on all the available evidence, and the state's poorly constructed argument, Zimmerman should walk.
But at the end of the day Zimmerman still technically killed a 17 year old whose only intent that night was to visit his dad. When you step back from the situation (really, really far back) that's just seems 'wrong,' and for whatever reason, people in general have this unreasonable expectation that life is supposed to be 'fair' or 'make sense'.
I wouldn't be surprised if he was found guilty, just disappointed in -- well, the media and society for letting their emotions and desire for 'fairness' and over-rule the the importance of the law.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
"She's honest, she didn't lie about Trayvon calling GZ a 'creepy ass cracker'" "Sure, she lied to the police, but still!"
|
On July 12 2013 03:24 SKC wrote: Not on the "color" of her personality. That's some nice wording right there. I don't know why he would use that word. We have planning sessions for closing arguments and we highlight words that are "no-no's" like that.
|
|
|
|